Carol Burnett sues "Family Guy" over parody

from broadcasting and cable

Carol Burnett Files Lawsuit Against 20th Century Fox Television By Jim Benson

It�s Stewie vs. Charwoman.

Carol Burnett has filed a $2 million copyright infringement lawsuit against 20th Century Fox Television, alleging the studio never had her permission to include her cleaning woman character Charwoman as a porn shop maid in an April 2006 episode of the animated Family Guy.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Burnett filed suit in U.S. District Court suit Thursday claiming the show used an "altered version" of her 1970s variety show�s theme music and had characters perform her signature ear tug.

In addition to copyright infringement, Burnett, 73, alleges that 20th violated her publicity rights.

The studio expressed surprise at what it said amounted to an 18-second scene.

"Family Guy, like The Carol Burnett Show, is famous for its pop culture parodies and satirical jabs at celebrities,� 20th said in a statement. �We are surprised that Ms. Burnett, who has made a career of spoofing others on television, would go so far as to sue Family Guy for a simple bit of comedy.�

Hey...she sued The National Enquirer and won...more power to her.

Parody is covered under the first amendment, she won't win this one and if she does the judge should be removed and deported.

Agreed. Satire is protected, and her lawyers have to know this. So all I can assume is that she's trying to "send a message". That message, at least to me, appears to be one or all of the following: "I have no sense of humor (anymore); I am litigious; I can't take a joke (anymore)."

All the best people I've ever known were able to laugh at themselves. Sure, maybe today's comedy is more explicit, sexual, and edgy than it had been in her day, but that's the deal with comedy--it changes and evolves, and any good comedian past or present should be able to respect that. No one's gonna laugh at Tim Conway walking around on his knees anymore. That ship has sailed.

ROFL. Someone forgot to tell Tim that. To this day he still trots out that act. It's just sad.

Yeah. Funny, isn't it, how comedy ages so badly? What seems hilarious to one generation is considered lame by the next. I can't think of one TV show or many movies over 25 years old that would make me laugh once, even the "classics".

On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 23:21:18 -0700, SirWilly wrote:

Not even Caddyshack? Some comedy ages well, but some is timeless. The Little Rascals, Three Stooges. Looking at those infomercials for the Dean Martin Celebrity Roasts, they seem pretty funny to this day.

In article , "SirWilly" wrote:

I still chuckle at the Three Stooges. Low brow humor, I know, but it works for me.

Once Upon A Time SirWilly wrote:

You've never seen the Marx Brothers, have you?

** Captain Infinity

"SirWilly" wrote in message news:[email]...

Airplane. All in the Family. Early M*A*S*H. The Dick Van Dyke Show.

I think really good comedy is timeless. It's the mediocre that ages poorly.

"Uniblab" wrote in message news:[email]...

poorly.

Meanwhile, "the greatest comedy movie ever made" I didn't find that funny. Napoleon Dynamite was about a 35-year-old high school retard that calls everyone else "frickin' idiots."

I tried to watch Napoleon Dynamite because of all the critical acclaim it got. As soon as I saw the "MTV Films" logo at the opening credits, I knew this was going to be crap. After 20 minutes, I had to turn it off. I found it unwatchable.

Blazing Saddles, Young Frankenstein.

"SirWilly" wrote:

} Yeah. Funny, isn't it, how comedy ages so badly? } What seems hilarious to one generation is } considered lame by the next. I can't think of } one TV show or many movies over 25 years old } that would make me laugh once, even the } "classics".

There are many old comedies that are very crappy, but it would be a mistake to assume that crappy old comedy were _ever_ funny, even when originally made.

Bob Hope's "The Paleface" was well received, but it just wasn't funny. The first Peter Sellers "Pink Panther" film was not too hot either, but I doubt the Steve Martin remake is any good at all.

In my opinion, "The Carol Burnett Show" was usually pretty weak, even when it was brand new. There were occasional great sketches, such as "Went With the Wind," but these were few and far between. At its worst, however, "The Carol Burnett Show" was always better than "Mama's Family."

I didn't find "The Flip Wilson Show" particularly funny either. To some, Flip Wilson dressing as a woman and saying "What you see is what you get" was so funny, it was worth repeating over and over again, but I didn't find it funny even once. Had I seen this show when it first aired in the 1970's, I think it's unlikely it was any funnier back then.

Still, there was some great comedy in every period of time, and usually what was truly funny in its day remains funny decades later. If you don't think so, here are just a few classic films you probably didn't see, which are now well over 25 years old:

� Monty Python's "And Now For Something Completely Different" (35 Years old) � The Tex Avery-directed short cartoon "King Size Canary" (60 years old) � Laurel & Hardy in "Way Out West" (70 years old) � Popeye the Sailor in "Hello, How Am I" (70 years old) � "Disorder in the Court" with the Three Stooges (71 years old) � "Horsefeathers" with the Marx Brothers (75 years old)

The oldest piece of material I've ever laughed out loud at is an essay by Jonathan Swift called "A Modest Proposal" which suggests solving the problem of the poor Irish street people by eating them. I think it was written some time in the 18th century.

SirWilly wrote:

Good comedy ages well. Good comedy is just harder to find.

Bob Newhart Show ages very well. I still like Carol's show, when you can find it. Perhaps it's an aquired taste - it was one we'd usually make time for. If you can find Dobie Gillis reruns, the folks on there all had great timing, and it wasn't too period-bound.

I think Carol Burnett's stuff was more about how goofy they all were.

FWIW, they re-ran "Laugh-In" for a while, and my kids were actually impressed with it. I thought the show was lame when it was first run.

Besides, the Pythons stuff is verging on *35* years old, and nobody doesn't like the Pythons.

Not only that, but some of the articles about this suit tell exactly what she's suing over...one of the jokes, is that someone mentions to Peter that CB on her show used to tug her ear to say Good Night to her Mother...and Peter responds with "Jeez...what did she tug on to say Good Night to her Father?"...hahaha....now see if I didn't already watch this show, hearing that joke might actually entice me to tune in...you know what they say about publicity...I think this lawsuit will backfire...

Gavin

"So, I'm sitting there hearing HAL say, "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that...", and I'm thinkin, Damn!, I knew we should have gone with a Mac..." David Bowman, 2001

Or maybe they disagree that this constitutes satire. Try not to cry, idiot.

So

On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 17:58:27 -0700, omarenoryt wrote:

Well, well, well. I had wondered what happened to you Omar. Still hanging around the DC comics n.g.?

People insist that their lawyers go forward with hopeless cases all the time. If I had a dime for every trademark application I've filed that I knew would be rejected I would be rich.

Mez

In article , "Garondo Marondo" wrote:

No, it's protected under the Copyright Statute as a fair use exception.

On 16 Mar 2007 17:35:56 -0700, "Garondo Marondo" wrote:

Yep, there's no way in hell she's going to win this one -- it's clearly both parody and too brief a clip to be mistaken as anything but a parody.

  -- Rob

On Mar 16, 7:35 pm, "Garondo Marondo" wrote:

As the Stomach Turns, anyone?

"record hunter" wrote in news:[email]:

or the Gone with the Wind sketch

On Mar 16, 5:35 pm, "Garondo Marondo" wrote:

Actually, this is a Ninth Circuit case. Not that it will likely get to the Ninth Circuit, but they were the ones that had that screwy copyright case with a "humorous" book (humorous is in quotes because I have not read the book and have no idea how funny it was) aout the OJ trial written in a Dr. Seuss style format. The 9th Circuit basically decided in favor of the Seuss estate when they sued the publishers of the book on the basis that the Dr. Seuss style was not being used to parody Dr. Seuss or his writing style. As far as I know they are the only circuit to arrive at such a conclusion.

So, if the bit was clearly meant to parody Carol Burnett or her show, then she does not have a leg to stand on, but if it was merely used in a humorous context not directly satirizing her, then she may actually have a case.

"[email]" writes:

A friend of a friend (both friends are lawyers) swears he once read a decision that began with "This case comes to us from the Ninth Circuit. Other reasons for reversal include..." or language to that effect.

They haven't been able to find it again, unfortunately.

Probably because Family Guy, unlike The Carol Burnett Show, is a sorry piece of shit. Comedy fans all over America are hoping this suit drives that tired waste of time off the air.

Oh TomServo, I expected beter of you. :(

Agreed.

As annoying as The Simpsons... and even less funny (which seems almost impossible).

So it's not comedy fans who like Family Guy? And here I was thinking something was wrong because I don't like it. So who actually likes it? CSI watchers? :-p

"Seerialmom" wrote in news:1174349769.911156.203720 @o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:

At least Family Guy is funnier than crap like Scrubs and The Office.

Wiseguy wrote:

No and Hell No.

Brian

Wow, so much for having a sense of humor Carol.

Did anyone show her the episode where Peter beat the sh*t out of Jimmy Fallon because his on-screen cracking-up was an insult to Carol Burnett?

Excellent point!

Lava

I can understand Carol being upset, since her "Family Guy" is far removed from her family-friendly brand of humor. But I don't think she has much of a case - parody is protected.

In article , David wrote:

One wonders why Burnett's lawyers didn't advise her that parody is a fair use exception to copyright restrictions and that she has no case.

On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 23:26:46 -0400, BTR1701 wrote:

Because then they wouldn't get paid. :)

Bingo, Burnett has no case and her lawyer's are wasting her time and money by pursuing it. She needs new lawyers.

However lame "Family Guy" may be, it's still protected as parody.

Everett W.

shawn wrote:

Either that, or: (a) Perhaps they feel that they have to at least try to defend the copyright of her image - if a judge/jury says that she can't sue because it's parody, then at least nobody can claim later that she didn't try to defend the copyright so it's public domain; (b) Maybe if they can find a jury of FG-haters...

-- Don

Don Del Grande wrote:

No, they don't. Copyright doesn't work that way.

Brian

Default User wrote:

Maybe I'm confusing copyright with trademark - but in that case, what "copyright" was supposedly infringed in the first place?

-- Don

Don Del Grande wrote:

Probably.

That's a good question.

Brian

On Mar 18, 7:48 am, Don Del Grande wrote:

The ear tug. It was supposed to be a signal to her kids as I recall.

In article , "Seerialmom" wrote:

No, I think it was her grandmother.

Once Upon A Time Barry Margolin wrote:

Maybe it was her otolaryngologist.

** Captain Infinity

Default User wrote:

The articles I have read used the term "trademark". Parody is still protected.

In article , Don Del Grande wrote:

Copyright doesn't revert to the public domain if it's not defended. Only trademark does that.

On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 23:26:46 -0400, BTR1701 wrote:

Uh...... could it be $$? Nah, a lawyer would never take a case just because of the money...

BTR1701 wrote:

Prolly 'cuz they can bill hours to her.

Once Upon A Time David wrote:

Which episode is this referring to?

** Captain Infinity

On Mar 17, 8:21 am, Captain Infinity wrote:

Once Upon A Time Garondo Marondo wrote:

Ah, I remember that episode. That was "Peterotica". I remember thinking, when the Carol Burnett "Charwoman" character came on screen, that it was odd that she had decided to allow Fox to use her name and likeness in a way that put her in a bad light, cleaning the floors of a sleazy porn shop. I also remember thinking, when Joe's said "I wonder what she tugged on to say hello to her father", that they were obviously referring to her penis. I sure hope she wins her lawsuit, because now my mind is filled with images of Carol Burnett tugging on her penis to amuse her father, and because of that my opinion of her has dropped to a point where I will never again be able to watch any of her programs without retching. Urg. Carol Burnett's penis. *glorfff!!*

** Captain Infinity

peterotica

"So, I'm sitting there hearing HAL say, "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that...", and I'm thinkin, Damn!, I knew we should have gone with a Mac..." David Bowman, 2001

Those who likes CB are morons!!!